Robert Gates worried aloud about replicating the Soviet Union’s failed heavy footprint in Afghanistan. Under the command of General David Petraeus, the military’s leading advocate of counterinsurgency, an unconventional war is looking surprisingly conventional. NATO planes are dropping more bombs than at any time since the 2001 invasion. Special Forces have been operating on a tear since the summer, to the point where Afghanistan’s president is saying enough is enough. The coalition is using massive surface-to-surface missiles to clear the Taliban out of Kandahar. And now the tanks are rolling in.

In an excellent piece from the Washington Post’s Rajiv Chandrasekaran, U.S. military officials brag that they’ve “taken the gloves off” in Afghanistan, right as they’re sending 16 lumbering Abrams tanks into Helmand Province. That’s pretty much the opposite of Petraeus’ famous “Get Out And Walk” guidance for troops in Iraq. What do the tanks add to the fight? There’s some attempt at spinning their 120-millimeter guns as precision weapons, but one military official bluntly tells Chandrasekaran, “the tanks bring awe, shock and firepower.” Because Shock and Awe always works.

What’s more, in the experience of non-U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the tanks more a measure to protect troops than to battle insurgents. The Canadians sent their Leopard tanks to southern Afghanistan after getting pummeled in lighter vehicles by insurgent fire. If U.S. troops in the south still feel that the military command’s Tactical Directive on how to fight in Afghanistan ties their hands, the first wave of 16 Abrams tanks will probably tamp that concern down.

Chandrasekaran reports that Petraeus feels his reputation as a counterinsurgency guru can overcome the optics of a heavily armored force rolling through Afghanistan’s south, reminiscent of the Soviet occupation. But any reporter who spends time in Afghanistan will hear stories from surprised U.S. officers about how many Afghans don’t know the Soviets ever actually left. And chances are the Army/Marine Counterinsurgency Field Manual isn’t required reading in Kandahar or Marja.

What’s far more noticeable to Afghans is NATO blowing up at least 174 booby-trapped homes around Kandahar since September. Commanders may have cover from local government officials to do that, as NATO officials tell Chandrasekaran. But if the point of the Kandahar campaign is to get the locals to support that government instead of the Taliban, presuming that the officials are a proxy for local support is a dicey proposition.

In April 2009, Gates cautioned in a CNN interview, “The Soviets were in there with 110,000, 120,000 troops. They didn’t care about civilian casualties. And they couldn’t win.” Sixteen tanks do not remotely approach what the Soviets sent to occupy Afghanistan. And the proportion of civilians killed by the Taliban vastly dwarf those killed by NATO forces.

But now NATO, all combined, has 130,000 troops in Afghanistan. The numbers of civilians killed in the war is at an all-time high, despite a U.S. strategy predicated on protecting Afghans from violence. And starting today in Lisbon, NATO will endorse a strategy that will keep troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014, even while it holds 2014 out as the new date for foreign forces to cease combat.

If the purpose of repurposing tanks, missiles and air strikes for unconventional conflict is to pummel the Taliban into suing for peace with the Afghan government, Mullah Omar still rejects any negotiations with President Karzai. From his safe haven in Pakistan, can he really be “awed and shocked” into changing his mind? It’s almost as if a different superpower has tried this before.

Photo: DoD

See Also:

• Did a New Rocket Help Rout the Taliban? Depends What You Mean by …
• Bombs Away: Afghan Air War Peaks With 1000 Strikes in October …
• Drones Surge, Special Ops Strike in Petraeus Campaign Plan …
• U.S. to Leave Afghanistan in 2011 2014 Never

Authors: Spencer Ackerman

to know more click here